The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a proper affidavit in support of a writ petition and the limitations on an advocate's role in swearing an affidavit.

R.B. Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.C. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer to admit the petition, issue notice to the respondents and upon hearing may pass orders in favour of the petitioner or such other orders which this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. The brief facts narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was deployed as contingent worker at Yingkiong, vide order dated 6.3.2001 (Annexure-A) in the office of the District Agriculture Officer (DAO) at Upper Subansiri District, who proceeded on leave for 65 days in connection with his marriage and on his arrival on 20.1.2005 he was not allowed to join duty. For and on behalf of the petitioner Shri K.C. Jaiswal, learned advocate, submitted an application dated 24.1.2005 to the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri, to allow the petitioner to join duty. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 2.2.2005 (Annexure-C) desired comments from the DAO. Thereafter, Shri K.C. Jaiswal presented the case of the petitioner on 4.7.2005 again to the Deputy Commissioner as well as DAO referring several persons indicating therein that two persons out of them have left their work, therefore, the work for contingent labourer is available. Since the petitioner is entitled for some leave and if no such leave is available in his credit extraordinary leave without pay could have been granted to him and entitled to resume duty.

4. During, course of hearing on 13.9.2005 it was noticed that the writ petition has not been supported by an affidavit of the petitioner or any agent or pairkar rather the learned Counsel for the petitioner himself as deponent has sworn the affidavit on 12.9.2005, therefore, learned Counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present writ petition with assertions that Shri K.C. Jaiswal after having been engaged on Vakalatnama by petitioner/party is not legally entitled to swear the affidavit preferred in support of the writ petitioner. Without going into merits of the writ petition the following aspects are being noted revealing from the writ petition.

(i) The prayer made in the writ petition is vague as no specific writ, namely, Mandamus has been prayed seeking direction to the respondents.

(ii) The advocate, Shri K.C. Jaiswal engaged by the petitioner as an advocate on Vakalatnama, has sworn the affidavit.

(iii) The contents of the Vakalatnama do not indicate that the petitioner was authorised by the petitioner to swear the affidavit.

(iv) Shri K.C. Jaiswal has not indicated his age, address and the capacity to swear the affidavit.

(v) The affidavit is not in proper form.

(vi) No verification has been made in the affidavit dated 12.9.2005.

(vii) It has not been indicated whether Shri K.C. Jaiswal has sworn this affidavit as the holder of power of attorney of the petitioner or agent or Pairkar or authorized person.

5. Without dealing with the merits of the petition, the maintainability of the writ petition in reference to an affidavit by an advocate as deponent (engaged by the petitioner/party), is the main question for consideration.

6. In order to deal issue it is necessary to indicate Section 16(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, (in short the "Act 1961") which acknowledges two classes of advocates, i.e., Senior Advocates and other Advocates. Section 17(1) provides that every State Bar Council shall prepare and maintain a roll of Advocates in which shall be entered, the names and addresses of (a) all persons who were entered as Advocates on the roll of any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 and who at any time express an intention in the prescribed manner to practise within the jurisdiction of the Bar Council and (b) all other persons who are admitted to be Advocates on the roll of the State Bar Council under the Act 1961 on or before the